welcome to "full measure." today, new information about what may be the most confounding mystery surrounding the benghazi controversy -- why no outside u.s. military help came to the rescue as terrorists battered two compounds and the americans inside over nearly eight hours. four americans were killed, including ambassador chris stevens and diplomat sean smith, along with glen doherty and ty woods, both former navy seals. in recent days, the house benghazi cmittee heard from key figures in closedoor testimony. david petraeus and former defense secretary leon panetta. hear from a third official that few have probably heard of --nse department chief of staff, whose email happens to be central to our report t it's an email he sent from the military to the state department enghazi attacks -- one that's been kept from public view for three years and lends evidence to

interrupted. assistance. we are overrun. if you do not get here soon we are all gonna die. sharyl: the film "13 hours: the secret solers of benghazi" opens later this week. >> none of you have to go. but we are the only help they have. sharyl: it's the harrowing account of six cia teamembers in an annex about a mile from the benghazi compound when it fell under attack. they cla when they tried to go to the rescue, their boss delaye >> you're not the first responders, you're the last resort. sharyl: now, an email hidden from public view for three years reveals another rescue attempt was apparently interrupted. the military offered to deploy special forces to benghazi during the assault long before the atckers killed cia

seals glen doherty and ty woods. three and a half hours into the eight-hour long siege, the military's chief of staff jeremy bash emails top state department officials -- "we have identified the forces that could move to benghazi. they are spinning up as we speak. they include a special operations forces element that was in croatia." col. wood: "they're spun up as we speak" means that he's made contact with them, they've confirmed that they've been given that order, and they're making progress toward gng to that location. sharyl: retired ar cololnel andrew wood commanded a special forces anti-terrorism team protecting ambassador chris stevens and other diplomats in libya. in 2 2012, wood told congress his team was removed from libya by the obama administration a month before the attacks, despite warnings of terrorist violence to come. for the first time, wood's speaking out with a startling claim -- that those special forces offered in the military email were on their way to

col. wood: those individuals i know loaded aircraft and got on their way to benghazi to respond to that incident. they were not allowed to cross the border, as per protocol, until they g commander in chief. that authority has got to come from him. otherwise, they're not allowed they're not allowed to go further into the country. i have a high degree of confidence that that happened, based on information that i've heard from i iividuals that were there. the forces were put into motion. they simply were not allowed to go further. sharyl: the white house has refused to detail the involvement of president obama, the commander in chief, while americans were under attack on foreign soil. following a shorbr the beginning of the assault, he virtually disappears from the public narrative. the white house declined to comment fofor this report, but has long denieany assets were available or ready, and said everything possible was done. yet the email indicates special

high-ranking obama administration officials, or "princals," were to weigh in. ssuming principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask state to secure the approval from host nation," the military tells the ste department. "ple convey that approval to us." libya's approval for the u.s. forces to fly in to help. the availability of special forces is news to greg hicks, the top u.s. diplomat in tripoli during t in 2013, hicks testified he repeatedly told there was no military help available. mr. hicks: i asked the defense attache who'd been talking with africom and with the joint staff -- is anything coming? will they be sending us any help? is there something out there? sharyl: responding to the newly public email, hicks tells "full measure" -- "an aggressive

options presented "would have tasked me with obtaining flight and landing clearances from the libyan government. i have no doubt they would have been granted." sharyl: the significan of this memo, would you say? gary berntsen: it's incredibly significant, and you would understand why the administration wouldn't want people to see that those elements within the government that were tasked with the protection of lives and property, actually started the process and were stopped. sharyl: gary berntsen is a former cia senior operations officer and chief of station. he commanded counter-terrorism missions and led the response team after islamic extremists bombed u.s. embassies in east africa in 1998. like wood, berntsen says quick reaction military teams are tasked to handle emergencies exactly li automatitically spin up -- unless and until they're stopped. gary berntsen: you proceed because if there's an emergency and americans are at risk --

the threat of death or a threat of kidnapping or any kind of violence -- we're moving. sharyl: a military srce familiar with some of the night's events also confirms military options were provided. "there were both conventional and special forces in theater and assigned to africom offered up by general ham" on a video teleconference. "based on what i know, the forces they were talking about could have gotten there pretty gary berntsen: only political instructions from above would have stopped them. there is, you know, no one is going to wait. that is my experience, of having done this for almost 25 years, having led the teams myself, you're proceeding, you're going. sharyl: when we come back -- what obama officials have said about the military response that night and we ask why a rescue would have been interrupted. deployed to help these people

sharyl: we continue with questions over whether benghazi involved a rescue interrupted and a newly-revealed emaild offered up a special forces team to deploy to benghazi during the attacks -- long before the last two americans were murdered. but the obama administration never sought approval for their planes to fly into libya.

sharyl: the upcoming film "13 hours: the secret soldiers of benghazi" recounts the story of cia agents who say they were prevented from going to the immediate rescue of the americans under attack a mile away. and no outside military came to help. but now, an internal government email shows u.s. special forces t far away had "spun up" during the attack. and sources say, they were headed to benghazi but were stopped. the new details may help explain why congress had so much trouble getting direct answers from obama officials who insisted a rescue attempt was impossible. when questioned in 2013, general martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and secretary leon panetta of the department of defense or dod gave no hint that special forces had actually "spun up." graham: was any dod asset ever deployed to help these people before the end of the attack? dempsey: would you rephrase,

graham: was any dod asset , aircraft or individual soldier, ever sent put in motion to help these people before the attack was over? i could -- as soon as we knew mission force and the fast teams began. graham: my question is -- did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in benghazi, libya before the attack ended? panetta: no because the attack ended before we could get off the ground. dep. sec. burns: there simply wasn't enough time at that point to bring u.s. military forces. hillary clinton: their assets were too far away to make much difference in any timely fashion. admiral mullen: there simply was not enough time for u.s. military forces to have made a difference. sharyl: adding to the claims of a rescue interrupted -- the leader of a foreign emergency

testified his squad, too, was stopped from responding and a small u.s. military team in tripoli was ordered not to board a plane for benghazi during the attacks. wood says it all implies a decision at the highest level. otherwise, he believes the military would've gotten in position to respond five hours before the benghazi attacks when the u.s. faced a related csis -- islamic extremists overran the americanmbassy in cairo, egypt. col. wood: their cpound had been breached and there were people now inside their buildings under protection of marine guards waiting for someone to bust into the rooms. to me, that would signal somebody should be getting those reaction forces ready to stand by and perhaps move. and then five hours later, when things occurred in benghazi, and again, the alarm bell went off, and there was no apparent

pretty tough one to explain with -- >> with events transpiring in cairo, at the embassy in cairo, not to react may have been made very early on in the day, when those -- when those events were transpiring. so that by the time that benghazi happed, it wasnt going to happen because that decision wadas made early on. sharyl: if so, why isn't clear. but the attacks came eight weeks before the 2012 election. president obama had campaigned on the idea he'd sent terrorists running. pres. obama: al-qaeda is on the path to defeat and osama bin laden is dead. sharyl: critics say deploying the military to terrorist attacks could have been viewed as more harmful to the campaign than the incorrect explanation the administration gave -- that prpresters attacked after being whipped up by an anti-islamic youtube video. >> i know, i understand. sharyl: a special forces soldier for 24 years, wood says his team

briefed that if they evever got into trouble, those special forces in europe were tasked with coming to the rescue. col. wood: they're kept in a high state of readiness just for that purpose. so they're willing and able and ready to jump, they're like the fire department, in any town, in any city in the united states. sharyl: to illustrate how close the u.s. special forces in croatia were, a commercial flight taking off at the start of the benghazi attacks with an hour and a half layor in turkey, still could have arrived in libya before wowoods and doherty were killed.ial forces offered up by the military ended up at the u.s. naval base at sigonella, italy instead of benghazi. and in a delay that remains unexplained, it took 1hours from the time the military said they'd spun up for them to make that hour and a half flight from croatia to italy, far too late to help. col. wood: i operated there under the belief that those reactition forces would be there

of trouble like what happened. sharyl: two groups of testimony given under oath by government forces that could have responded quickly, and that even if they had scrambled more people, they couldn't have gotten there in time to make a difference. gary berntsen: i don't believe either of those reflect the truth of what occurred on the ground there. they had forces moving, they could have intervened, they should have intervened, and had they, we likely would have been in a position to save the second two men who bravely sacrificed their lives. sharyl: the state department has said, "the notion that it did not do everything possible to protect our people that night is as offensive as it is wrong." there's one piece of evidence that could help in the debate -- the military after action reports dissecting the military response. but the pentagon has refused congressional and media requests

still ahead on "full measure" -- the president calls for action on guns and gets a tremendous reaction.

executive authority and, sharyl: president obama began the new year with a sign that he would not go gently into his lame duck year. his call to action on gun control signals what may be a busy year to further what he considers key issues to his administration and legacy. so we might expect a number of executive actions -- or executive orders. the difference makes a difference. scott thuman has a little -- our "reality check." scott: on his first day of his last year in office, president obama called on congress to take action on gun control. can't stop every act of violence. but what if we tried to stop even one? scott: the media and politicians went into overdrivdr >> the president of the united states may come out with an

>> the president set to y out a series of executive orders. >> i'm very proud of president obama's announcement. >> on my first day behind that desk, those orders are gone. pres. obama: until we have a congress that's in line with the majority of americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun vience and save more lives. scott: the president's plan to tighten control and increase enforcement of firearm laws in the u.s. by expanding background checks is an executive action -- not an executive order. and yes, there's a difference, explains stephen j. wayne, professor of government at georgetown universitity. prof. wayne: when he issues an order, it's usually a broader statement of "in the future i want it to happen this way." when he issues a memorandum or a direive or makes a statement, it's much more specific, but they are mainly ceremonial. and they don't have the policy impact.

bypassing congress -- and earning him some criticism. represen texas calls it a distraction and "disservice to the american people." scott: are you all just being pushed on the sidelines as the white house steers the ship? rep. babin: well, he would certainly like to have it like th founding fathers set this and that's not the way the constitution reads. scott: some democrats, including rep. mike thompson of california, have come to obama's defense. rep. thompson: the critics of president obama's executive action say that he's overstepping his boundaries, he thinks he's the king, and then the same folks say it's okay to take arms and overrun a government building. it's a real contradiction. scott: this isn't the firsrst time the president has taken heat for overstepping congress. prof. wayne: institutial and political rivalries will generate debate over executive orders.

with all the actions i've taken this year, i'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years. so, it's not clear how it is that republicans didn't seem to mind when president bush took more ecutive actions than i did. scott: he has a point -- maybe -- president george w. bush issued nearly 300 executive orders during his two terms in office. but obama isn't too far behind -- he's at nearly 230 so far -- and vowi president obama has warned he will not sit idly by on the sidelines during his final year sidelines during his final year and it's a safe bet he will outline even more new actions in his state of the union speech, tuesday night. shar: thank you, scott an update to "breaking bad," our report on the billion dollar federal agency, nist, that got caught with a meth lab operating in its midst.

police lieutenant who was operating the lab when it blew up last july, was sentenced this week. he was sentenced to 41 months in fedel prison. congress is investigating what one republican calls the culture of waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct at nist police services from alleged timecard fraud to missing swat team gear -- which nist denies. still ahead on "full measure" -- it is must-see tv for the campaign season. nexta closer look at the substance of debates past and the profits of reality tv

sharyl: the real heat of the presidential campaigns begins in the cold of iowa. caucuses. candidates from both parties debate this week at separate events in south carolina. there was a rumor once that the debates were more for issues and theater. the numbers may paint a different picture in this edition of "campaign incredible." >> the moment of truth has arrived. welce to the first debate night of the 2016 presidential campaign. sharyl: they're filled with memorable moments. >> excuse me. >> one second. >>no. sharyl: there's a cast of colorful characters. bernie sanders: america's sick of hearing about your damn emails! sharyl: and there are sudden eliminations. howie: if this is a reality show campaign, then the televised debates are like "survivor" with people getting kicked off the island. sharyl: but this isn't reality tv, it's 2016 presidential politics. howie kurtz, media critic and

says the debates have become the grand stage for candidates and -- to some extent -- have replaced or overshadowed traditional campaigning. prary debates have become a staple in modern day politics dating back to the 1940's and pre-dating perhaps the most famous general debate in american history. >> the republican leadership has opposed federal aid for education. sharyl: that was when a young and suntanned jack kennedy was given the win in the first televised debate over richard nixon. >> nixon was awarded the win by radio listlieners. produce memorable moments. >> i am paying for this microphone mr. -- [cheers and applause] [laughter] >> you're likable enough, hillary. >> let's see -- i, i can't name the third -- oops. sharyl: so, how much interest have this election's debates generated? when it comes to ratings, americans are watching in record

democrats have hd three of six planned primary debates with each averaging about 10.8 million people watching. in terms of viewers, republicans are winning by huge margins. like democrats, the gop is also close to halfway through its 12 planned primary debates drawing in an average of 18.5 million viewers -- eight million more than democrats. howie: debates have never been more important in shaping the perception of the candidates, perceptions, and how they think and t on their feet sharyl: when it comes to money, modern-day debates are highly produced profit makers. company please -- companies air their ads during the september gop debate. cnbc reportedly charged $250,000 per commercial. and fox news charged upwards of

howie: thihas become the town square in a way that does not campaign i've ever covered. sharyl: according to a pew poll, watching at least some of the primary debates. that's a big increase from the roughly 40% who reported watching the debates in december 2007, the last election where there were contested nominations in both parties. >> i know more about isis than believe me. sharyl: the boost can be credited in part to gop frontrunner donald trump. while a majority of americans says the debates have been fun to watatch, nearly 60% concede the debates have fallen short when it comes to focusing on important policy issues. howie: debates of always been a television show. there is entertainment value to them. at the same time, they really a lot of substance, if you watch carefully. they have an educational aspect.

sharyl: thursday is the next gop debate. next week on "full measure" -- the president's vow to close guantanamo. we'll examine what is known as the most expensive prison in the world and talk to one man who helped capture the enemy combatants. we will talk about his concerns about their release. that's next sunday on "full measure." thank you for watching. i'm sharyl attkisson. until next time, we'll be searching for more stories that

good good morning. who wants to be a billionaire? >> now for your winning powerball numbers. it is lucky 13. >> despite a nationwide frenzy, that lucky 13 was not lucky.